Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turkey/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

Turkey

[edit]

I am nominating this article since it has gone through extensive work in the course of the last month. Nearly every section has been rewritten and a huge references and bibliography section added. The article has been restructured per other FA country articles. It has just made GA a week ago [1] with extremely high marks. Since then, more sources have been added, certain sections have been made more comprehensive all at the same time keeping it concise.

In my humble opinion, this article currently stands as one of the best country articles in Wikipedia on a par with Canada, for example, and will be a great addition to the Wikipedia's FA repertoire. A google search for "Turkey" lists the Wikipedia article at second first place for the moment, and I think that it will do Wikipedia proud :)

The article has been extremely stable since the rewrite has started, and the only thing that happens now and then is the good ol' vandalism and sandbox :) The main purpose of the article is to give a very general overview of the country without going into too many specifics, therefore that has also contributed to its stability. As a general trend, edit-wars always happen when articles are poorly written.

The references cited are generally direct sources, meaning that I have tried to find the exact reports and press releases about the subject matter (e.g. economy section figures are nearly all sourced by statistical press releases that pertain to only that subject and not just simple "factbooks"). Citations are used everywhere where need be, even for common knowledge data. They are all cited per WP:CITE as well.

I suppose that there might be a typo or two here and there, but the article has been proofread by many editors so there shouldn't be too many. So, how does it look? :)) Baristarim 06:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding former nom for archival purposes. Sandy (Talk) 21:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment I haven't had a chance to read, but noticed some structural things that should be fixed. I changed a section heading (capitalization) to agree with WP:MSH. The news sources are not cited correctly, because cite web is used for news sources - the correct template is cite news. When there is an author listed, they should be given on news sources (a random check turned up several incomplete in this article). Pls re-do news sources to use cite news and to include all relevant bibliographic information, including author. Also, section templates aren't used correctly - they belong below the section heading, not at the end of the section (see WP:GTL and *{{See also}}). Sandy (Talk) 09:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I will replace them with cite news. Which section templates? Do you mean the see alsos? Baristarim 10:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see further comments below in the SkyTrain FAC - I was just looking up further info on the correct use of the templates, and the See also template is used when there is further info in another article that is not linked in the text, and it should be placed below the section heading (the kind of basic info not easy to find anywhere in Wikipedia :-) I will try to read your article later. Sandy (Talk) 10:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done. I corrected the see also situation, and changed the neccessary citations to cite news. See alsos generally crowd the place, and most of them were already linked in the sections. So I moved the neccessary ones to the Main and took out the others.Baristarim 10:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response: I'm still quite busy with holidays, but will try to read a lot of these FACs this weekend. Sandy (Talk) 14:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite there yet - for example, this is missing author - pls doublecheck all refs: "Headscarf row goes to Turkey's roots". British Broadcasting Corporation. 2003-10-29. Retrieved 2006-12-13.
Ok.. I will check them.. Thanks for the commentaries by the way, they are appreciated! Baristarim 23:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I double-checked all the references one more time, and made the neccessary fixes for correct citations. Feel free to let me know if I missed something. Cheers! Baristarim 01:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice work - I indicated support above. Sandy (Talk) 02:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Baristarim 03:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. Wow! Great job! It definitely deserves FA status, but I think that the article still needs a few minor (mostly stylistic - like the categories at the end of the article which were not alphabetized) tweaks:
  • In notes printed sources should have specific pages. See, for instance, note 2,3 and 19, where there are no pages.
  • Are all the sources in "References and bibliography" used in "Notes". If not, you should make clear which are actually "References" and which "Further bibliography (or reading)".
  • Don't overwikify the text. I think I saw Greece linked more than once.
  • Negotiations with the EU have stalled not because Turkey does not officially recognize Republic of Cyprus, but because it has not yet implemented the provisions of the Customs Union with EU for Cyprus by not opening its harbors for (Greek-)Cypriot ships. The diplomatic recognition of Cyprus is not yet a problem.
  • You say that the Greeks, Armenians and Jews are the official minorities. What is then the legal status of the other minorities (Kurds etc.)? I think you should elaborate a bit more on that.--Yannismarou 13:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • References and further reading section splitted.
  • I modified the sentence about the EU-Cyprus-Turkey to correctly reflect the nature of the dispute.
  • I tried to cut down on unneccessary wikifications. Some words are still cited two or three times in the article, but they are in completely different sections. I kept them simply not to force the reader to try to find the wikified term on the top of the article or vice versa. However, I don't think that there are any redundant wikifications left.
  • For the references that you mentioned, I will shift through the history of the article to dig the page numbers that were lost when I was formatting the references per WP:CITE.
  • I added a phrase to clarify further the status of non-official minorities in Turkey. Cheers! Baristarim 01:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Baristarim 08:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support. Nothing on the human right abuses by the government on the minorities from what I can see, and also nothing on the controversies regarding joining the European Union bcause of that and the denial of the Armenian genocide, and relations with the Cypriots.--Rayis 14:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These issues were talked about extensively in the talk pages (we have 9 archives! :)). The article is simply trying to give an overview of the country, and with general, but informative, sections. A lot of stuff, controversial or not controversial, have been moved to subarticles, and are given as main articles under the section headings. I know that this article has the potential to confront some controversial issues, but the important thing was to simply strike the best NPOV possible and keep it general as the GA reviewer pointed out last week. Obviously there are always improvements that can be made, but for such changes it might be better to form a concensus in the talk pages. FA won't mean that the article will be static or locked down :) Cheers! Baristarim 19:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent article, nuetrually written, exactly what a featured article is Abdullah Geelah 23:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppport. Excellent article. Love the administrative division map. Great citations. Surprised that there haven't been violent debates, vandalism or edit wars. Overall well done. —ExplorerCDT 00:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-written and evenly balanced. metaspheres 00:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Beautiful! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Terrific article, well referenced, and basically stable in terms of edit wars. Hello32020 13:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I passed this article into GA status and made recomendations to bring it up to FA status. All changes have been made. This is a GREAT article, and deserves promotion as such. --Jayron32 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Featured article. Well-written and sourced. E104421 19:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very well written alot of effort put into also. Nareklm 09:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full Support per Baristarim Caglarkoca 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. (The addition is an improvement, but it is worded a little awkwardly, and it doesn't state what the position of most scholars is.) Much of it is very good, some of it extremely well done in fact, but the lack of attention given to conflicts is disconcerting. The article makes it sound as if there is no ethnic tension in Turkey and glosses over past problems. While the country being strongly secular is mentioned at least three times, only about a sentence is given to the Kurdish issue, and that's in the context of foreign relations. What about religious and ethnic conflict? Is there truly none in a country bridging east and west? I don't want to create problems, I know it's extremely difficult to discuss conflicts properly, but ignoring their existence isn't the answer either. The more I look at it the more convinced I am it is a very serious problem with the article. The answer of course isn't the other way, giving 1/2 the space of the article to covering conflicts, and I'm not asking for anything even approaching that. The facts do need to be mentioned though. Finally the foreign relations section almost entirely focuses on the relations with the west. What about relations with the Arab world or Africa? - Taxman Talk 15:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong? :) Sorry that you feel that way. I think that you are glossing over one of the key elements of Wikipedia: concensus. I didn't create the article, most of the ideological guidelines were hammered out in the talk pages. We have ten archives, and most of the contributors to the talk pages have been non-Turks, and we have had many heated discussions. Please keep that in mind and ask yourself if you are not looking at this from your own point of view of the country. I know what you are trying to say, but Turkey is not a conflict ridden country either :) Trust me, the concensus was reached by people who know the country from back to front, with many Greek, Turkish, Kurdish and European editors arguing for weeks on end sometimes. The facts are mentioned; the conflict, the casualties, the situation in northern Iraq, the Kurdish minority, its status, the situation of the language etc. As for the foreign relations.. Turkey doesn't have much relations with Africa, and hasn't had too much relations with Asia, and in the Middle East its main relations are with Israel. The balance of that section is carefully chosen to reflect the actual balance of the country's foreign relations. All the references are there, and the article has been proofread many times. In any case, improvements are always possible, and the actual phrases in certain sections can easily be modified as long as a concensus is reached in the talk pages. I do not share the view that the conflicts are being glossed over: the article has been extremely stable every since the rewrite has started one month ago, and if any major controversials had not been addressed, there would be edit wars all over the article. In fact, since one month, there haven't been even minor revert wars, let alone full-blown edit-wars. I just think that any modifications or reformulations of sentences should be raised in the talk page, if you have any suggestions, feel free to raise them in the talk page. I already tried to address Yannismarou's concerns on two points (and he is not Turkish btw :)). The article as it is reflects a great concensus, along with many efforts at comprehensiveness and conciseness. Every single info in the article is cited, nearly all of them by sources accessible on the Internet, even for books. Baristarim 15:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it has been discussed does not mean the right decision was reached. Lack of edit wars also does not mean the article is balanced. In fact, I shudder to think of that being used as a criterion. I have nearly no connection to the subject, and I feel comfortable saying I can be about as unbiased about it as it is possible to be. That said, it is easy to see the article glosses over conflicts. I'm not saying it is conflict ridden either. I'm saying the article shouldn't act like it is conflict ridden if it isn't, but it also shouldn't act as if there are and have been almost no conflicts as it currently does. The article mentions there are Kurds, but not that there is any tension. It mentions 99% of the population is Muslim, but not if there is any religious tension, whether between fundamentalists or other religions or not. The failure to mention anything relating to the Armenian Genocide is further evidence of a problem. I reallize it's in the past (not even the current Republic of Turkey), a touchy subject, etc. But acting as if that type of tension doesn't exist is extremely POV. I reallize ignoring that type of thing may help to avoid edit wars, but that's not the right solution. As to foreign relations, if the reliable references support the balance of the foreign relations section being the way it is, then I fully defer to you on that. I guess I'm surprised given the location, but facts are facts. - Taxman Talk 16:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing was removed to soothe the article, if that's what you are trying to say. You are mistaken, the article clealry mentions that 37000 people died in the Kurdish insurgency, how is that a glossing over? As I said, I am afraid that you are looking at the country without knowing the specific dynamics of it. I didn't say you were biased at all, in fact, I was trying to say the exact same thing as you said; that looking from a standpoint where we have no connection to the subject matter, we can be easily influenced by only the superficial and sensational information we have heard. Your example with the foreign relations is a great example: the current layout was well thought of, ironed out, and is fully supported by solid references. Cyprus and Greece get a paragraph because they are key to the biggest thing in TR foreign relations: EU. If Turkey was trying to enter the Arab Union, the foreign relations section would be about the Arab world, not about the EU. This article wasn't written in a day :) You have said that the article doesn't mention any conflict with the Kurds, but it does mention that 37000 people died. Believe me, the article is very well referenced, though of, comprehensive and concise, and it doesn't gloss over any conlicts. There is a whole paragraph about the Greek-Turkish dispute, how is that a glossing over? The demographics section clearly mentions the underlying conflict and causes of the illiteracy figures, with very solid sources. But any suggestions are welcome, it would be more useful to raise them in the article's talk page. I am sure that your objection was duly noted, and if you have any general suggestions pls share them in the talk page: we shouldn't be using this page too much for content disputes, at least not about the extent of the tensions about the subject matter. This article has potential to cover contentious issues, so it would surprise me if somebody didn't object. Every country article has the potential for strong POV disputes, nevertheless this article does a great job of summarizing them and keeping them concise in a way that will not cloud the rest of the subject matter. In fact, this article is very informative and concise to anyone that wants to learn about the country. However, please also remember that there are many daughter articles listed as main that talk about every single topic in more detail.Baristarim 16:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one said it would be easy. Sometimes only an outsider can see the imbalance. Now that I've pointed it out I think it will be fairly obvious to others that review the article, and I'll just let my comments stand on their own. I never said it was awful or that the whole article was bad. There are many very good aspects, but also one very important problem. It wouldn't take re-writing the entire article to fix it, and it seems you're taking this a little too personally. - Taxman Talk 17:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no problems. However, same exact comments were made before by User:Reyus. What I don't get is, even though he made harsher comments than you have, he still said "conditional support" and not "strong" object. The article has very strong 100 inline citations + 10 books, some from presses like Cambridge University Press + solid pictures + types of maps that are not found in any other country article + small guides like the CIA factbook are not even cited once + there is not even one typo, the structure of the article is more than adequate. I don't think you are being fair with a "strong object", that's all. That article is frequented regularly by users of many nationalities, and I am sure that any further improvements that can be made will be raised in the talk pages. I am not the sole creator of the article, I assumed the rewrite on behalf of WikiProject Turkey and keeping in line with general talk pages concensus that was established over a long period of time, so I find it a bit awkward. The thing is, I responded to your comments: first you said why Africa wasn't mentioned in foreign relations, then I pointed out to you why it was so. There is no imbalance: that is the correct academic balance, sources are there. Then you mentioned the disputes. As I said earlier, disputes/tensions are adequately, comprehensively and concisely covered as it can be seen on a closer look of the article. The talk pages are and will still be there, FA doesn't mean a "lock-down" of the article, the article will continue to improve no matter what. That's all I am saying. If you have any suggestions about reformulations of sentences, let's please discuss it in the talk pages. Baristarim 17:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved my object to strong to denote the importance of the problem, it has nothing to do with the rest of the article, which for the most part is impressively high quality. This last issue needs to be brought to the same level. I let the foreign relations part of my objection go because I take you on your word that enough sources have been consulted to support that balance. However I believe it is clear that various conflicts have not been given their due in the article that the proper balance of the facts would dictate. For example, I would take it as fairly self evident that if something that some large countries have stated is among the largest genocides ever is not even mentioned, then too little attention is given to conflicts. Again they don't need to dominate the article, but they need to be mentioned more than the current amount, which is nearly ignoring them. - Taxman Talk 18:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Taxman, you're saying "What about religious and ethnic conflict? Is there truly none in a country bridging east and west?". It would be perfectly reasonable if you've stated that "the article fails to mention this (specific conflict) and that (specific conflict), which are of major importance in this subject". Could you please be clear about what conflicts you are talking about, so that the article can be improved (like Fedayee did below)? Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Atilim. I would like Taxman to say specifically "this", "this" and "this" is missing in a "bullet style", so that Baris and the other editors can address his concerns, and so that the reviewers can more easily check what is done, what is not and what cannot be done.--Yannismarou 19:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per Atilim and Yannismarou I would also like to see some bullets about the missing conflicts. I read the article over again and I see the TRNC controversy, political instability, coup d'etats, tensions with its neighbors, particularly Iran and Greece, financial difficulties, minorities being a sensitive topic, the Islamic headcover issue. Perhaps the only glaring missing conflict is that of the Armenian genocide. --Free smyrnan 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I would say that the article reflects, in terms of conflicts, pretty well what a visiting outsider would see. I have had people go to Turkey and express surprise that they did not find the entire country full of bombed-out cities with ethnic gangs shooting each other at every street corner. This is the view one can easily get reading about Turkey as a foreigner from most sources and this is incorrect. The conflicts and the problems are there and should not be ignored, but they are not the first and foremost thing that one notices about Turkey in "real life". --Free smyrnan 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware that's not the case. I've been very careful to say I don't think it should go overboard discussing conflicts and devoting a lot of space to it. But too little isn't right either. The Armenian issue is an improvement, probably enough, though if the facts support the next sentence from that article starting "However, most Armenian, Russian, Western, and an increasing number of Turkish scholars believe that it was indeed a genocide", then what has currently been added to Turkey is not enough. Perhaps changing the sentence to rejects the notion put forth by _____ or supported by. Or simply note they are in the minority in their position. A shorter overall mention of the issue would be fine if possible, but also needed is whether that tension is felt today or not. Perhaps eliminate the sentence starting "Poor conditions of the Armenians...". Perhaps with the fixes to the Armenian issue that will be enough. Once that's done I'll defer to other's view if it's been solved. Ask Sandy or other experienced reviewers. - Taxman Talk 04:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that last sentence was cut, and the sentence is still based on Jayzel's first addition. I am still looking into the foreign relations section. I see your point however. I will try to see if it can be shorter as you said, and comprehensive at the same time. If it can't be, it can stay as is. Cheers! Baristarim 05:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the situation in the foreign relations section, now it covers both the emotions surrounding the armenian genocide in tr-Armenia relations and TR-Azerbaijani relations with regards to the conflict in Nagarno-Karabakh. I think that the foreign relations section cover pretty much every area possible that there are :). Baristarim 07:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yannismarou, I did mention a specific problem. But sometimes the problem with pointing out specifics is that sometimes only that specific thing you mention is changed without fixing the overall issue. It also means you have to know exactly what the correct fix is. In this case I was very confident about a general problem but didn't know the exact fix. While specifics can be helpful, it's not required in order to point out a problem. Sometimes the best you can do is bring attention to an issue. - Taxman Talk 04:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, to cut short :) Some of the specific objections have been addressed. However, it is normal that people can have different views when they look at an article, especially an article about a country. All I am saying is, npov issues have been worked on, in every aspect of the article even in economy section, to the best possible standard. There is no way that we can have an article that will be considered as npov by everyone that reads it. However, this article has a very good academic balance as it covers issues, about the economy, culture, demographics, politics etc sections. Any subtleties should be developed in the daughter articles. Anyone reading the article from top to bottom will know what the issues are in a concise and comprehensive manner, and the structure of related daughter articles lets every issue to be explored in more detail.Baristarim 08:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Support(info on Armenian Genocide and foreign relations has been added) I'm not trying to be "the Armenian again" who votes against it just because it is an article about Turkey. In my opinion, this article is very well written, as Baristarim said, as good as the Canada article but reading Taxman's comment made me realize that this article fails to mention anything about the Armenian Genocide. I am not trying to start WW50 on this issue, I am not pointing fingers but when something like that is a major issue between Turkish-Armenian relations and when the government of Turkey does everything possible to stop other government's recognition of the 1915 events as Genocide, then I think it is worth mentioning in the article. These events have a major role in Turkey because demonstrations are held against it by nationalists, you see a Nobel prize winning author being arrested, you see Turkish-EU relations being questioned over the issue , Turkish-French relations etc. In fact, even US-Turkish problems may appear according to Turkish news , [2], [3], [4], [5]. Anyway I think my point has been mentioned, maybe all this should be covered thoroughly in Foreign relations of Turkey article but not to see one mention of the words "Armenian Genocide" is kind of odd. Anyway on the positive, this article is very well written and I would gladly support it if it weren't for what I mentioned above. Good job Baris on almost re-writing all the article single handedly. Fedayee 18:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a paragraph on the Armenian deaths to the Ottoman history section. I hope that is acceptable to all involved. Regards, --Jayzel 19:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I am still kind of annoyed at Taxman for not saying it sooner and instead looping the discussion to Africa and I don't know what. The current state is ok, however I will try to see if it might fit into the foreign relations section since it is more of a contemporary topic, more than it is a historical one in any case, sadly. If this was it, I could have made the addition myself and made a note on the talk page for more input from others instead of talking about TR-Africa relations :) It should be fine for now, I will try to raise the issue in the talk page to see if it might fit better into the FR section, or a bit higher up in the OE section. In any case, someone could have left a note on the article's talk page about this.. But anyways, c'est la vie. Baristarim 19:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the issue of Armenian Genocide clearly plays an important enough role in Turkey's foreign relations to be mentioned in this article. It would be better to have a mention of the issue and Turkey's stance regarding this. Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I will leave a note at the article's talk page to decide where it should be mentioned, in the history section or the FR since, as I said, it is much more of a contemporary issue, sadly. Or maybe move it in the history section? But no biggie, that's what the talk pages are for :) Baristarim 19:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make it a personal issue against people that oppose. Stick to the issues as I have done. It's not just about the Armenian Genocide, it's a general issue of the article making it look like there was little to no conflict ethnic or religious. The foreign relations issue was brought up because that issue looked like it could have needed a broader perspective too. Given that at least one big issue was not covered and you fought tooth and nail as if there wasn't a problem when there was, it's not unreasonable to be concerned about some of the research. - Taxman Talk 20:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For Fedayee, I do not think that public surveys need to be mentioned in an encyclopedic article. The problems in U.S Turkey relations are due to the fact that most people dislike the U.S foreign policy specifically the iraqi war. Otherwise I do not know any recent major problems between US and Turkey. For Turkish French relationships, we can include a paragraph in Denial of Armenian Genocide article. I do not agree that the main article is the place of it. Before making accusations, we must not forget that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we must mention only encyclopedic details. And further dtails should be discussed in talk pages. Thanks Caglarkoca 22:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For Caglarkoca, the links I gave were to show how much of an impact the Armenian Genocide has on Turkish foreign relations. It affected French relations, it has affected relations with every country that has accepted the events of 1915 as genocide. I am not asking for an article on US, France etc. I am asking something simple that is very clear. The impact of the Armenian Genocide on Turkey is big. There are demonstrations by nationalists in Turkey against it, the film Ararat was banned in Turkey, the upcoming ban on Sylvester Stallone's 40 days of Musa Dagh film, Orhan Pamuk's arrest, the cancelled military contracts w/ France, the closed border w/ Armenia, some EU countries questioning of Turkey's place in the EU because of the Armenian Genocide...these are all the because of the Armenian Genocide issue. I think it deserves a simple mention. I am confused on why this is not encyclopedic. Besides on a side note, do you think Turkey would be pleased if the Democrats pass a bill recognizing the genocide? Anyway this is off topic, I have said my points. Thanks Fedayee 23:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So going back to the topic :) The history section was edited accordingly, however I will peruse one more time. As for the foreign relations, I will post back when I will have done so. Cheers! Baristarim 03:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the situation in the foreign relations section, now it covers both the emotions surrounding the armenian genocide in tr-Armenia relations and TR-Azerbaijani relations with regards to the conflict in Nagarno-Karabakh. I think that the foreign relations section cover pretty much every area possible that there are :) Baristarim 07:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Technically, the article is very well written, neutral, stable, thoroughly referenced using solid sources, and clearly meets the Wikipedia featured article criteria. I think that it gives almost perfect relative balance to issues covered within each section (though I believe the Culture section could and hopefully will be improved). It is of appropriate length, provides a very good introduction to the subject without being boring and it leaves further details outside the scope of an introductory text to the specific main articles listed under each section heading. A very good addition to the featured articles list overall. Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very well written, reflects the country realistically and provides a good background. --Free smyrnan 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support conditionally As above it meets the requirements of a FA, but it does have some glaring omissions that have been mentioned. Consensus doesn't mean altering the facts. Still, article is well-balanced, outside of the omissions, very few grammar errors, a few typos, covers much for a country with such an extensive history, explains things well and clearly without resorting to language-consensus (words with no meaning), is accessible to all levels. In general, more than other country articles I've read, it allows the reader with little to no knowledge of Turkey to learn enough, without any further reading, to be a knowledgable watcher of what is going on in Turkey today--except for the glaring omissions, mentioned above, which are being corrected. A current events article on Turkey would make an excellent addition for more information in certain areas that could be better covered. KP Botany 02:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The part about the Armenian Genocide was already edited in the history section, and the only thing that remains to be seen is in the foreign relations section. As for the other omissions that you mentioned, can you be more specific? Me and other users have asked Taxman to explain his reasoning, and his comments are general comments about the article. What specific omissions are there? I really cannot see any glaring omissions: nearly everything is covered. And what do you mean about a current events article? Do you mean a section? If it is a section, I have to disagree that we should have such a section: other FA art do not include such sections and, in any case, it is much more professional to include relevant bits into appropriate sections. I hope that I were able address your concerns. Cheers! Baristarim 03:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another article for current events in Turkey.. Yeah, why not? I will leave a post at WikiProject Turkey's talk page. Baristarim 06:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the situation in the foreign relations section, now it covers both the emotions surrounding the armenian genocide in tr-Armenia relations and TR-Azerbaijani relations with regards to the conflict in Nagarno-Karabakh. I think that the foreign relations section cover pretty much every area possible that there are :) Baristarim 11:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearly there... The sentence (you know which one) says Turkey rejects the thesis, but doesn't actually say that it's the consensus (or at least that it's widely accepted/ the majority PoV). I'm switching to 1024x768 to check for image overlaps. Brilliant work, Baris (and others) yandman 17:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I made a (slight) mod to the sentence: "Although most scholars ... Rep of Turkey believes ... ". Hope everyone can agree on that. yandman 20:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stupid Question. Why did you change the infobox map? If all country articles have the same type of map, why this article should be any different? And could you remove the timeline box from the infobox, it best fits in the history section, or better in the history article. CG 18:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not all country articles have the same type of map: see Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine etc. The new map style was introduced by Wikiproject Countries a few months ago, with many countries recently switching back to the old green maps, and there are still an ongoing discussion about this on the projects talk page. And with all due respect, the correct place for your question is Talk:Turkey, if you have anything of relation to the FA candidacy please share that with the rest of us. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) In fact, some other articles also use that map. As far as I know, the actual map was drawn later after the older maps, so that's why it looks different. The timeline is also common practice, it is there to simply give a background of the country and the main events that led to its establishment as a modern country. See Canada and India for example. I am not too sure if taking them out would be a good thing. But I will try to make some more research and look into other country articles. Baristarim 19:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I think that everybody can learn enough from the article because it is detailed, it has proper links to the main articles of the mentioned things in it, it has external references and it has a nice picture gallery. I think that the inner and international issues of Turkey are objectively shown in the article. Deliogul 14:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ObjectNeutral Changed my vote. After a compromise was worked out regarding the Armenian Genocide, the original nominator has taken it upon himself to remove the information at this late a date in FAC. Article unstable and nominator not operating in good faith. --Jayzel 20:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Working to address the concerns on the FAC is excluded from the stability criteria. Otherwise how can the edits be done? Vandal sockpuppet attacks are also excluded from the stability criteria, a user vandalized the page using four sockpuppets, and all of them were banned. Any article can be subject to such attacks. It is not a question of good faith. I reverted the vandal's edits, then later did the merge under foreign relations section. In my latest revert, I said that I was going to take a look at it very soon, just like I had done here [6]. I do not have enough time on New Year's to deal with this! However, considering the urgency I took a look at it, the latest version cut down one sentence, and it looks better. That's my version. Let me know if it is removed. Baristarim 20:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I looked up the history I saw you were the most recent person to remove the paragraph and was surprised to say the least. I'll take back my comment you are acting in bad faith, but I think I will remain neutral on whether this should become an FA. I have a bad feeling it will remain a target for edit wars well into the future. Regards, --Jayzel 21:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, however I left an edit summary where I said that I was going to take a look at it soon. I know exactly what you mean about future vandalism. I also left a note at fedayee's talk page. As far as I am concerned, I have no more modifications to the article, I really would like to move on - I spent nearly one month on that article. I was going to do some work on the exec of Saddam, but not so fast apparently :) So if someone reverts, please let me know. I had removed the anon's delete and the addition of a lonely source [7] while work was in progress to address the FAC's concerns. Personally, I also thought the inclusion in the history section looked out of place. However I tried to revert edits that were not in line with talks at FAC or talk page [8]. I was not happy with the middle sentence in the foreign relations bit where it dwelled too much on details of what happened when, so I took it out as well. As far as I am concerned, people can follow the wikilinks and learn more about the subject there. If people want to work on those articles, that's where they should be working. I am aware that the article might be some attract-fly, but the latest version is the most concise and matter-of-fact way of putting it IMO. Any modifications that can be done are very minor wordings, however that also holds true for the rest of the article - any section or article can be reworded better as a general rule. As I said, keep the article on your watchlist, let me know if any wholesale deletes have taken place - now or in the future. Cheers Baristarim 22:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, it would surprise if the article wasn't subject to all sorts of edits in the future - and not just for a particular section. I had to wage a war against other sockpuppeteers who insisted on removing the literacy figures, those that tried to remove Orhan Pamuk's picture etc. You would be surprised actually :) However, the article is there to give an overview of the country, and it will be normal that many people will have different opinions about a country such as Turkey. As is, the article covers everything there is to know about the country + all conflicts there are, and they are all cited. I cannot see it getting any better. Baristarim 22:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns addressed. Will try to keep an eye on vandals and anons in the future.Baristarim 23:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Weak support (weak because edit wars have already started...hopefully it dies down but doesn't look like it) per Jayzel. I thought the issue was over with? Stop tampering with history, already it was bad that no such mention was there on the article. Fedayee 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. A vandal had been attacking the page for the last 36 hours, I cannot do anything about that. Four IDs were banned for being the sockpuppets of one user. Only other changes are those that were done to address the concerns in the talk page. I also reverted that user's edits [9] and [10]. I fixed them both under foreign relations section last night [11]. The problem is, I cannot be everywhere at the same time on this holiday season! Baristarim 20:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You guys can keep an eye on the article as well you know. I didn't create the article, I just worked on it. Look at the actual version and let me know if someone tries to revert it. And also pls take a look at the article's history closely, there is no bad faith. cheers! Baristarim 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns addressed. Will try to keep an eye on vandals and anons in the future.Baristarim 23:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment concerned about the issues raised by Taxman and others, hope they will be (continuously) dealt with, lest this go the way of Hugo Chávez, which passed FA with brilliant prose in spite of glaring POV and biased references (issues not understood by most reviewers at the time it passed, since the media wasn't yet paying attention to Chávez), and was subsequently FARC'd due to instability and POV. Please heed Taxman's and others' comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no problems. I raised some issues with many editors and some admins so that they keep an eye on the article as well. Hopefully as a country article it will be more stable, even though certain users, particularly newcomers, tend to expect a newscast about the country :) Until three months ago, nearly every major event concerning the country got included. Prime Minister said this, said that, an airplane was hijacked etc... Hopefully the "overview" rule will not be disturbed, but generally a wide range of editors keep an eye and contribute to the article, so that's always a plus. That's why most sources are impartial as a rule; only Turkish sources are for some economic figures as released by the Turkish government + geographical information and a couple of general references. And nearly all of the news sources are from the BBC, simply because it is very reliable and does a good job of keeping neutrality for a wide range of subjects. For the moment the article is only getting the usual anon sandbox/vandal occasionally. Thanks though! cheers Baristarim 05:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree on the BBC; in fact, it was long one of the big problems with Venezuela/Chávez reporting, so take care to diversify sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Needs a serious copy-edit to attain a "compelling, even brilliant" standard of prose. Let's look at a couple of small sections as examples of why the whole article needs work.
    • "was elected on 16 May 2000, after having served as"—Spot the redundant word.
      • This one I couldn't get, he was elected while he was (or right after) serving as the President of the Constitutional Court.
    • "though he exercises a largely ceremonial post"—Exercises a post? "has a largely ceremonial role", surely; "although" is inappropriate, since many heads of state have this role.
      • done
    • "court of last resort"—ort, ort.
      • done
    • Why are the head of state and PM referred to with generic male pronouns? Can't a woman accede to these offices?
      • I will try to fix this by moving some words around
    • "The executive power is exercised by the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers that make up the government, whereas the legislative power is vested in the unicameral parliament, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey." And replace "whereas" with a semicolon—there's no contrast here. In fact, go through the whole article identifying the false contrasts: I see "although" and "whereas" wrongly used in several places. Here's another false contrast in "nevertheless": "As of 2004, there were 50 registered political parties in Turkey, whose ideologies range from the far-left to the far-right.[33] Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court can strip the public financing of political parties that it deems anti-secular or separatist, or ban their existence altogether."
      • done
    • "Neither the Prime Minister nor the Ministers have to be members of the parliament; though in most cases they are"—The semicolon is wrong.
      • done
    • "mitigated proportional representation"—"mitigated"? Very odd.
      • done
    • "There are 85 electoral districts that represent the 81 administrative provinces"—No, try: "85 electoral districts represent the 81 administrative provinces".
      • done
    • Minus signs or en dashes for below-zero temperatures: see MoS.
      • You mean they should have, or shouldn't have? Currently all sub-zero temperatures have minuses..
    • "publicly-owned"—No hyphen after -ly words. "investor-confidence and foreign investment"—Why the hyphen?
      • done
    • "Turkey's GDP currently ranks 17th"—Spot the redundant word.
      • done
    • The appearance and readability are severely compromised by the fact that the text is so blue: messy and bumpy speckling, especially at the top. While many of the links are focused and useful, why not sift through and remove perhaps 20% of them. Some are repeated, some are unfocused and not useful, such as English, democratic, secular, unitary, constitutional republic, Europe, Asia, China, the list goes on. Why on earth would our readers need a blue link to China? Let them key it in the box if they need to go there.
      • I will try to remove some of them. I did some removals, but I am not sure what else I can remove from the intro.. Some of the links are there for completely uninformed readers. I will continue to peruse though.. Baristarim 13:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I tried to cut down on the unneccessary wikifications.

There's a lot of good in this article, so let's complete the job ... Tony 12:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will do them in a couple of hours. These should be easy to fix, but I have to go out at the moment, so I will look at them in a couple of hours. Thanks for the comments! Baristarim 12:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just removed the turkishweekly.net links (on this FAC page), as they were triggering the spam blocker, rendering the entire FAC page uneditable! Apologies. Gzkn 07:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Turkey/archive1&oldid=1089733250"